DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on June 12, 2026. Claims 1, 22 and 29 have been amended, and claims 14-21, 23 have been canceled, and claim 30 has been added.
Currently claims 1-13 and 22 and 24-30 are pending with claims 22 and 24-28 under consideration and claims 1-12 and 29-30 being withdrawn as being directed to non-elected invention. Claim 22 is independent.
Election/Restrictions
The Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claims 1-13 drawn to a subcombination for assigning resources by dynamically determining a set of weights for the resource assignment, classified to G06Q 10/06313 and G06N 20/20.
Claims 22 and 24-28 drawn to a subcombination for assigning a set of resources to a set of stations based on simulated pre-determined resource assignment, classified to G06Q 30/020, and G06Q 50/40.
Claims 29-30 drawn to a subcombination for assigning a set of resources to a set of stations based on memory workload, classified to G06Q 10/06313, and H04L 67/1008.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In this case, subcombination I has separate utility such as determining a set of dynamic weights using a machine learning module based on the set of resources, the set of stations, and a set of copies associated with the set of resource assignment copies, the machine learning model trained based on pre-determined weight associated with a training set of resources and a training set of stations, and assigning a set of first weights from the set of dynamic weights to the set of pre-determined resource assignments and a set of second weights from the set of dynamic weights to the set of resource assignment copies. Subcombination II has separate utility such as cause the set of resource comprising one or more aircraft to be received at the set of stations comprising one or more airport gates according to the set of solution resource assignment. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions I and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In this case, subcombination I has separate utility such as determining a set of dynamic weights using a machine learning module based on the set of resources, the set of stations, and a set of copies associated with the set of resource assignment copies, the machine learning model trained based on pre-determined weight associated with a training set of resources and a training set of stations, and assigning a set of first weights from the set of dynamic weights to the set of pre-determined resource assignments and a set of second weights from the set of dynamic weights to the set of resource assignment copies. Subcombination III has separate utility such as retrieving a set of pre-determined resource assignments…each of the pre-determined resource assignments associated with an amount of memory processing such that the set of pre-determined resource assignment is associated with a first total amount of memory processing, determine at least one set of possible resource assignments that satisfies the resource constraint…, the at least one set of possible resource assignments being associated with a second total amount of memory processing that is less than the first total amount of memory processing, and the determining the set of solution resource assignment based on the lowest total weight being associated with a third total amount of memory processing that is less than the second total of memory processing. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions II and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In this case, subcombination II has separate utility such as cause the set of resource comprising one or more aircraft to be received at the set of stations comprising one or more airport gates according to the set of solution resource assignment. Subcombination III has separate utility such as retrieving a set of pre-determined resource assignments…each of the pre-determined resource assignments associated with an amount of memory processing such that the set of pre-determined resource assignment is associated with a first total amount of memory processing, determine at least one set of possible resource assignments that satisfies the resource constraint…, the at least one set of possible resource assignments being associated with a second total amount of memory processing that is less than the first total amount of memory processing, and the determining the set of solution resource assignment based on the lowest total weight being associated with a third total amount of memory processing that is less than the second total of memory processing. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention.
If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on June 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 22 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 22 and 24-28 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 5, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that claim 22 is also not directed to the alleged abstract idea, for at least similar reasons as discussed for claim 1 that: the amended 1 is not directed to the alleged abstract idea of “method of organizing human activity.” The “machine learning model” used to determine weights for different resource assignments, recited in amended claim 1, is indicative of a method that is not performable by a human, and thus could not be considered as being “a method of organizing human activity.” See Remarks, ¶ 2.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Assigning aircraft to gates is generally a manual process (see Spec ¶ 1). In another words, assigning resources to stations using a computer is merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Further, using a machine learning model without specifically training the machine learning model with technical implementation details is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The Supreme court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the Remarks on page 3, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if amended claim 1 were directed to an abstract idea, the claim when read as whole integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, the claim 22 recites the additional elements of “a memory” and “at least one processor” for performing the steps. The specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. For example, the Specification discloses “The system 100 may include a database 110, an external assignment system 120, and a resource assignment system 130 that include one or more functional modules may be embodied in a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the functionality of one or more of the functional modules and/or other functionality” (see ¶ 11); and “the external assignment system 120 may be any pre-existing computer-implemented (well known) and/or human-operated system for assignment resources to station. For example, the external assignment system 120 may be a computing system that receives various resources and various stations, and outputs a set of assignments that matches each resource with a station” (see ¶ 18). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because nothing in the claim elements reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology. With respect to discussion in paragraph [0050], indeed, reducing the processing load [to a computer] generally improves the performance of the computer, and the processing speed of the computer is increased. However, reducing the workload lead to finish the process faster and requires less memory is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology. The speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself. See Bancorp Servs., L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (US.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 22 and 24-28 are directed to a system comprising a memory and at least one processor, which falls within the statutory category of a machine.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Claim 22 recites limitations of “retrieve a set of pre-determined resource assignments (minimum occupancy time) for a physical resource at a physical station, generating a set of resource assignment copies that are different from the set of pre-determined resource assignment, receive a resource constraint for the set of resources and a station constraint for the set of station, assign a set of first weights (e.g., cost) to the set of pre-determined resource assignments, determine at least one set of possible resource assignment that satisfies the resource constraint, determine a total weight for each set of the at least one set of possible resource assignments, determine a set of solution resource assignments as a set of the at least one set of possible resource assignments having a lowest total weight, and cause the set of resources (aircrafts) to be received at the set of stations (airport gates); dependent claims 24-28 further narrowing the limitations and characterizing the attributes of claim 22 include ”generate a set of second resource assignment copies, assign a set of third weights to the set of second resource assignment copies, receive one or more resource assignment preferences, define a set of resource-station combinations by associating each of the set of solution resource assignment with each of the set of stations, assign a set of fourth weights to each of the resource-station combination, and determine a second set of solution resource assignments that satisfies the resource constraint and the station constraint and that minimizes a second total weight”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. With respect to generate a set of resource assignment copies comprises a “virtual copy” of resource assignment, it refers to the concept of creating a duplicate of the resource assignment that exists only in a virtual or digital realm, not a tangible physical copy. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to methods that allow user to assign resources to stations at an airport based on a lowest total weight (e.g., cost), which are concepts of fundamental economic practice and commercial interactions that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “a memory” and “at least one processor” do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 22 recites the additional elements of “a memory” and “at least one processor” for performing the steps. The specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. For example, the Specification discloses “The system 100 may include a database 110, an external assignment system 120, and a resource assignment system 130 that include one or more functional modules may be embodied in a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the functionality of one or more of the functional modules and/or other functionality” (see ¶ 11); and “the external assignment system 120 may be any pre-existing computer-implemented (well known) and/or human-operated system for assignment resources to station. For example, the external assignment system 120 may be a computing system that receives various resources and various stations, and outputs a set of assignments that matches each resource with a station” (see ¶ 18). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Again, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. See Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 22 recites the additional elements of “a memory” and “at least one processor” for performing the steps. The specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. For example, the Specification discloses “The system 100 may include a database 110, an external assignment system 120, and a resource assignment system 130 that include one or more functional modules may be embodied in a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the functionality of one or more of the functional modules and/or other functionality” (see ¶ 11); and “the external assignment system 120 may be any pre-existing computer-implemented (well known) and/or human-operated system for assignment resources to station. For example, the external assignment system 120 may be a computing system that receives various resources and various stations, and outputs a set of assignments that matches each resource with a station” (see ¶ 18). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, the processor, at best, may perform the steps including retrieving a set of pre-determined resource assignments [from a database], receiving a resource constraint for the set of resources and a station constraint for the set of station, and presenting (displaying) the set of solution resource assignments on at least one display. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Conventional computer components operating to collect, manipulate, and display data are well understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan. See Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 22 and 24-28 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above. Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights